Shock & Gore - TV Ads - Enough is Enough

[mrnoodle]

I don't deny that smoking is bad for you. I just object to the government encroaching more and more into people's personal business. I have a God-given right to be as healthy or unhealthy as I choose, regardless of what the state thinks of it. If I choose to buy cigarettes, the company that provides them is not responsible for my choice. Someone was talking about the "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" line -- my lungs ain't Caesar's. Nor are my cigarettes, although the government gets a healthy cut of that sale, too. All the people who are supposedly against the government codifying morality should be up in arms over this stuff, frankly.Should an ax come with a cautionary warning and pics of Lizzy Borden's crime scene? Should mayonnaise come with a picture of some guy who died because he was too obese for his heart to keep running?

Tobacco is on the shit list because politicians have found a way to use the brouhaha to their advantage, plain and simple (see: drug war, prohibition).

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

If I choose to buy cigarettes, the company that provides them is not responsible for my choice. Someone was talking about the "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" line -- my lungs ain't Caesar's. Nor are my cigarettes, although the government gets a healthy cut of that sale, too.

It's an interesting question... A physically addictive product has different implications than another product. What would the implications be if drug prohibition were ended, and they decided to put the coke back in Coke? (I'm not suggesting that it would be remotely likely, it's just a question.) Coca-cola is one of the (perhaps the largest) adverisers in the world, and the messages they put out reach more people than the most harshly worded press briefing from the FDA or the NIH. Should they have any responsibility to anyone but their shareholders in this hypothetical?

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Should they have any responsibility to anyone but their shareholders in this hypothetical?

Yes. But unless they are actually hiding the harmful effects from their customers, they're not violating any law, and the government doesn't have any reason to interfere. Their personal ethics are an important consideration, but they aren't under governmental oversight.

Jack Daniels kills too, and in far more sudden, heartbreaking ways (along with the longterm illnesses it causes). Yet, people know what alcohol is, and what the potential outcomes of its use are. And the government has already seen the folly of trying to declare war on people's desire to be inebriated.

On a little more philosophical tack:
When you make a choice, you are actually choosing a set of outcomes, not a single outcome. Choosing to take the first sip of alcohol exposes you to a set of negative outcomes that wouldn't be on the table had you made a different decision. Choosing to smoke a cigarette does the same thing. No one is unaware of the potential dangers of smoking. The companies who make the product are under no further obligation to beat their customers over the head with lawyer-spawned crap.

In regards to the health of their customers, tobacco execs are no more liable than purveyors of other unhealthy things, like sharp sticks and hairspray.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Yes. But unless they are actually hiding the harmful effects from their customers, they're not violating any law, and the government doesn't have any reason to interfere.

Of course, Big Tobacco has sorta shot itself in the foot on this issue by funding all sorts of "studies" trying to sow doubt of the ill health effects. After doing that, saying that "everyone knows" despite their best efforts is disingenuous.